Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Henry Chan
Claim
Number: FA0402000237523
Complainant is Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Complainant”)
Stamford, CT, represented by Elizabeth
A. Alquist, of Day, Berry & Howard LLP, City Place, Hartford, CT 06103. Respondent is Henry Chan (“Respondent”) P.O. Box SS-6348/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <perduepharma.com>, registered with Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Registrar.com.
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Louis
E. Condon as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on February 18, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 20, 2004.
On
February 19, 2004, Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <perduepharma.com> is
registered with Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com and that Respondent
is the current registrant of the name. Iholdings.com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com,
Inc. d/b/a Dotregistrar.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On
February 27, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of March 18, 2004 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all
entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical,
administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@perduepharma.com by
e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
March 23, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under
Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated
to achieve actual notice to Respondent."
Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents
submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's
Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems
applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <perduepharma.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PURDUE PHARMA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <perduepharma.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <perduepharma.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
Purdue Pharma L.P. was formed in 1991 to research, develop, produce, market,
sell, distribute, and license analgesic medications and other pharmaceutical
products. Complainant has conducted substantial research for the causes of
chronic pain.
Complainant has
developed and marketed a variety of well-known products, including prescription
medications such as OxyContin®, and well-known over-the-counter medications
such as Betadine® and Senokot®.
In connection
with its analgesic preparations, Complainant filed a registration application
for the PURDUE PHARMA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) on July 5, 2000 (Ser. No. 76/084193). On June 10, 2003, the USPTO granted the registration number
2723050 to Complainant for the PURDUE PHARMA mark, which is now listed on the
Principal Register. Complainant now
uses the PURDUE PHARMA mark on its labeling, package inserts, and in its
advertisements, and has done so continuously since 1991.
Complainant
also operates its business online at the <pharma.com> domain name, which
was registered in 1996. The attached
website provides information about the company and its products, including
employment opportunities.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <perduepharma.com> on November
14, 2002. The attached website contains
the following statement displayed prominently at the top of the website:
“Perduepharma.com
Your source for the most popular Perduepharma info!”
Respondent hosts
pop-up advertisements at the disputed domain name and also provides information
relating to “OxyContin,” even providing links to websites that sell the
same.
Previous Panels
have required that Respondent Henry Chan transfer domain names that infringed
upon third-party marks. E.g. Elsevier v. Chan, FA 161468 (Nat. Arb.
Forum July 23, 2003); Yahoo! Inc. v. Chan, FA 162050 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Jul. 16, 2003); LTD Commodities LLC v. Chan, FA 152617 (Nat. Arb. Forum
May 8, 2003); Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 12, 2003).
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations
pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such
inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three
elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or
transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and
is being used in bad faith.
Complainant owns
the USPTO registration for the PURDUE PHARMA trademark, which was filed on July
5, 2000. The PURDUE PHARMA mark has
been used continuously in commerce by Complainant since 1991. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant
has established rights in the PURDUE PHARMA mark. See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher,
D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that the registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption); see also Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick, FA 117861 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law, registered marks hold a
presumption that they are inherently distinctive and have acquired secondary
meaning.”); see also FDNY Fire Safety Educ. Fund, Inc. v. Miller, FA 145235
(Nat. Arb. Forum March 26, 2003) (finding that Complainant’s rights in the
successfully registered FDNY mark date back to the original registration
application that was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).
Under the
Policy, whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a registered
mark is determined by examining the differences between only the domain name
and the mark, without regard to other circumstances. See Porto Chico Stores,
Inc. v. Otavio Zambon, D2000-1270 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2000) (stating that the
issue of identicality or confusing similarity is to be resolved “by comparing
the trademark and the disputed domain name, without regard to the circumstances
under which either may be used”); see also Gavagai Tech. Inc. v. Gavagai,
FA 135611 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (concurring
with the Panel in Porto Chico Stores in finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is
determined by comparing the domain name with the mark and refusing to
“stray from the clear language of the ICANN Policy”).
In this case, the disputed domain name <perduepharma.com>
has merely substituted the first letter “u” in Complainant’s PURDUE PHARMA
mark with the letter “e.” Such a minor
change in spelling has consistently been held under the Policy to be
insufficient to overcome the confusing similarity between a domain name and a
mark. See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding that the domain names
<tdwatergouse.com> and <dwaterhouse.com> are virtually identical to
Complainant’s TD WATERHOUSE name and mark); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder
& Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000) (finding that the
domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STATE
FARM mark); see also Hewlett-Packard
Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the
domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar to
Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark); see also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8,
2000) (finding that the domain names, <davemathewsband.com> and
<davemattewsband.com>, are common misspellings and therefore confusingly
similar).
Moreover, the disputed domain name <perduepharma.com>
and Complainant’s PURDUE PHARMA mark are phonetically identical. The identical pronunciation of a domain name
and mark has also been consistently held under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to establish
confusing similarity between names and marks. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Cupcake City, FA 93562
(Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is
phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark satisfies ¶ 4(a)(i) of the
Policy); see also Vivendi Universal Games
v. Chang d/b/a Domain543.com, FA 206328 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Dec. 17, 2003) (finding the <warcraft3.net> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark
where the name retained the "predominant word" in
Complainant's registered mark and "merely cloaked the substance of the remainder of the mark in a
different form, specifically by substituting Roman numerals with Arabic");
see also Pfizer Inc. v. Phizer's Antiques & Phizer, D2002-0410 (WIPO July 3, 2002) (finding the
<phizer.com> domain name phonetically equivalent and
confusingly similar to the PFIZER mark).
Therefore, Complainant has
established that the disputed domain name <perduepharma.com> is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark PURDUE PHARMA pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(i).
Respondent has
not provided the Panel with a Response to Complainant’s allegations that
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that
Respondent’s failure to respond is an implicit admission that it lacks rights
and legitimate interests in the <perduepharma.com> domain name.
See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v.
Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that
Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have
no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. AOL Int'l,
D2000-0654 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where Respondent fails to respond); see also Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic
Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (“Failure of a respondent to come
forward to [contest complainant’s allegations] is tantamount to admitting the
truth of complainant’s assertion in this regard.”).
The record
before the Panel fails to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the
disputed domain name. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23,
2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
Respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known
by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see
also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of
Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain
name in question).
Furthermore,
Respondent is using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to
host information relating to Complainant’s OxyContin® product. This information includes hyperlinks to
third-party websites that sell Complainant’s OxyContin® product. Using a domain
name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and providing Complainant’s
products or links to such products on the attached website is not a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See G.D. Searle &
Co. v. Mahoney, FA 112559 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2002) (finding
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to solicit pharmaceutical orders
without a license or authorization from Complainant does not constitute a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)); see also Nike,
Inc. v. Dias, FA 135016 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (finding no bona
fide offering of goods or services where Respondent used Complainant’s mark
without authorization to attract Internet users to its website, which offered
Complainant’s products and those of its competitors).
Respondent is
also using the disputed domain name to host pop-up advertisements. Such use does not represent a bona fide offering
of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) because Respondent commercially
benefits from the confusing similarity between its domain name and
Complainant’s mark. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc. &
Carrington, FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (holding that Respondent’s use of confusingly similar derivatives of
Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to divert Internet users to websites featuring
pop-up advertisements was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see
also Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v. Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb.
Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that used Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet
users to website that pays domain name registrants for referring those users to
its search engine and pop-up advertisements).
Therefore,
Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent has
registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The domain name is then used to expose
Internet users to a series of pop-up advertisements for the purpose of earning
revenue for each referred user. These
two facts, taken together, evidence that Respondent is profiting from the work
of Complainant in establishing a respected reputation and goodwill associated
with Complainant’s registered PURDUE PHARMA trademark. Thus, Respondent registered and used the
disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by attempting
to attract Internet users to its online location, for commercial gain, by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s PURDUE PHARMA mark. See
Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if
Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when the
domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent is using the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v.
Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that
Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent used the confusingly similar domain name to
attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent
registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users to a website
sponsored by Respondent).
Furthermore,
Respondent has a lengthy history of registering domain names that infringe upon
third-party marks. Many of these domain
names were found to be intentional misspellings of third-party marks that were
registered in an attempt to siphon Internet users, who make common spelling
mistakes, to Respondent’s sponsored website. This activity is often referred to
as “typosquatting.” In this case, the
Panel finds that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, evidence of bad faith
registration and use under the Policy. See Nat’l Ass’n of Prof’l Baseball
Leagues v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) (“Typosquatting is
the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off
traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common
typing errors. Typosquatting is
inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”); see also L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA
96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that Respondent acted in bad faith
by establishing a pattern of registering misspellings of famous trademarks and
names); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, FA 124516
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (stating that, “Redirecting Internet users
attempting to reach a complainant’s website in order to gain a profit off of a
complainant is one example of bad faith use and registration under the Policy”).
Therefore, Complainant has established that Respondent registered and
used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant
having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the
Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <perduepharma.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon, Panelist
Dated:
March 31, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page